If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I can see the analogy makes you raise more questions, but as you could realise for yourself the analogy is only meant to clarify the difference of domains between science and religion, and to illustrate the mistake that we have been making for such a long time - to look for answers in God when we should be looking for them elsewhere, and leave God the position that is His (or Hers). In other words - to bring down the god-of-the-gaps theory. The questions you ask are very postmodernist he would say, and he does have quite a few things to say about the subject that are definitely not contained in the present analogy but that I, however, consider myself to be a poor representant of, so I would suggest referring to his works for more information on what he would have to say on that. Something tells me that you won't though
But I haven't lost my spirituality or belief in God.
It annoys me when people automatically assume that anyone who criticises a religion is a hardline atheist.
I am certainly not an atheist. Hardline atheists can be extremely patronising imo, sometimes even more than religous proselytizers.
^ That's good to hear.
That's a nice sound-bite, but hardly true.
:yes: I have to agree. There is no way that the number of "hardline atheists" can ever match the numbers of patronising religious exponents.
Depends whether the atheists have power or not...
The various holy books of the big 3 religions on the other hand are bursting full with all kind of unpleasant commands and suggestions on what to do to those who fall foul of their rules. Luckily a majority of followers tend to ignore such doctrine, but others don't.
Some of the most homophobic, sexist and patronising people I've met have been atheists. Yes, I've met people who are religious who were patronising, but I've never felt intimidated by a religious person... I guess though, that comes to my own experience.
A wanker is a wanker. Being an atheists by no means makes you purer, smarter, more moral or less likely to be a nasty person. If you're a bigot, you're going to find a way to justify your bigotry to hide it.
An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of deities. That is the long and short of it. There are no requirements, no rules, no demands to be or become an atheist.
Of course people who are atheist can be bad. People who like fried eggs can be bad. People who wear a moustache can be bad. Neither of those inclinations or personal tastes have anything to do with the nature of the person. In fact, there is as much chance of Stalin, Hitler or Saddam Hussein to have done what they did because of their moustache as there is because of their supposed atheism.
A religious person on the other hand is, in most faiths' cases, required to follow certain rules and commands and to believe certain things. And many bigots and extremists do indeed believe they are doing their God's bidding when they discriminate against, antagonise and in some cases hurt or kill others who don't conform to their faith's rules.
As I've said many times below the majority of religious people tend to varying degrees ignore the unpleasant part of their religious books- though depressingly high numbers of them still score very poorly on sexual orientation issues. But the point is that some people commit wrong acts, ranging from discrimination and bigotry to imprisonment, torture and murder solely because their faith tells them to do so.
Therefore it is completely inappropriate and off the mark to compare atheists, however strongly they might feel about their lack of belief in God (is that possible anyway???) with religious people, and specially fundamentalists when discussing morality and wrongdoing based on personal beliefs. Only one set of people has been known to commit wrongdoing directly prompted by their beliefs.
But if you believe religion is the opium of the masses it doesn't take much to think that the people need enforced cold turkey...
Now certainly not all atheists (or even most) would want to line up buddist priests and shoot them in the back in the head or make Catholic Priest dig their own graves before shooting them (in the lucky cases killing them), before burying them. But it was a direct result of their atheism that these actions were done by some people.
I can't really see much difference between atheist extremists and their religous cousins...
You either believe in something or you don't. If you don't, that's the end of it.
In every single case where members of the clergy have been murdered by "atheists" there has been a complex political background to the issue. They certainly weren't killed simply because they believed in God.
There appears to be a trend of theists referring to atheism as a belief system. I guess it helps them believe the old adage of "well Mao/Stalin/whoever was an atheist so atheism and theism are exact equals". It's laughable really; merely citing common denominators does not establish the cause of their actions - that's just lazy thinking. They were also all men, had moustaches and were political leaders. Fuck, moustaches and theism are equals as well!
It must take some serious squinting and cocking of the head to turn disbelief into a belief system.
Er, but when most people have been killing other people there's a complex political background. That's hardly unique to atheist's killing.
As an excuse it strikes me as the mirror image to the excuse that when the Catholics burnt Nick Ridley at the stake it wasn't due to his religion, but because of the 'complex political situation'.
However the atheism was so integral a part of the killing you cannot seperate it from the rest of the political situation.
Are there any examples of people killing because of their disbelief in a deity? Seriously? Stating a killer was an atheist doesn't infer that it played a part in the act.
And stating someone is religous doesn't mean it either.
However when you line up Buddhist priests and mow them down with because religion doesn't fit with you new vision of society or pull Greek Orthodox priests from their beds and put bullets in there heads because religion is the opiate of the masses, I think its fair to say atheism had a part.
Debatable. Atheism is apolitical and does not make any claims or demands. How could it be, when it is not even a belief system?
Hell, many people will argue that even communism itself doesn't advocate killing religious people, or anyone else for that matter.
The point being that it is only organised religion that specifically requests certain people are persecuted and/or killed.
Well yes, but then I was responding to CptCH's comments that stating someone is an atheist doesn't mean that it was atheism which did it.
Oh there's different types of atheism and I'm not suggesting that all atheists are quiet happy to line up religous leaders and mow them down. But I kinda of assume that you're saying the same about religion and we're only talking about the motivations of some people.
In which case it seems to me to be absolutetely unarguable that some people have been motivated to kill others by atheism - the fact that not all atheists support them is irrelevant.
Now of course you can make excuses and say Christianity (whoops atheism) doesn't say you should kill your neighbours or that the killing of Greek Orthodox Priests in 44/45 (whoops, the killing of Moslems during the crusades) was the result of complex political factors. Which of course is true. But it ignores the fact that one of those factor was the religion of the victims.
Personally as an agnostic I can't help but see the mirror image between atheism and religion's adherents. Both are made up of a mixture of people some of whom are liberals, some are fundamentalists, some have thought deeply about it and some just tick a box on the census form. Even the whines of atheists that we don't understand remind me of nothing more than the Church of England as it's most self-pitying
Atheism does not demand anything at all- least of all murder and persecution.
That has been my point all alone. Atrocities have been commited and still are being committed regularly as a direct result of the specific commands, rulings and instructions given in the holy books of the three main religions. It is not a question of some people being twisted bastards or using religion as a tool of power (which is true and has happened often enough), but a question of other people who actually see themselves as 'do-gooders', fair and rightful and have commited terrible acts of prejudice, persecution or worse simply because they have been brainwashed into believing their God wants them to do that.
That is the fundamental difference between religious folks and unbelievers. No unbeliever has ever been prompted or directly instructed by their atheism to do any wrongdoing (this is not surprising since atheisim doesn't actually have any ideology, rules or manifesto). However many religious people have been prompted to commit wrongful acts simply because they believed their faith demanded them so.
That is why comparing atheism, however 'radical' some of his members might have been, to religious extremism is not only insulting but also 100% wrong and off the mark.
I don't see how that is different to people following ideas of nationalism and communism. The only difference is the presence of a deity.
Not really. People will always find beliefs to justify hurting people and claim their beliefs to be absolutely true. Whether it is a spiritual belief, a political belief or a philosophical belief, it is capable of causing great harm or great good. Blaming religion completely simplifies issues which are far more complex.
Of course people will always find beliefs to justify atrocities, however, not all beliefs are equally dangerous. Some beliefs have to be seriously twisted to get anywhere near a justification. And some don't.
Not true.
Certain texts of books followers of the three religions specifically ask people to kill others. Mainline Christianity for example ignores what the Old Testament says and focuses on the New Testament and the teachings of Christ, I went to Church for years as a child and can't once remember a single excert from the Old Testament during the priests' sermon. And this is the "evil" Catholic Church I'm talking about here. I'm sure it's the same with the other two Abrahamic faiths, although Islam is slightly more worrying in that regard I think.
Well, I think you'll find the actions of the Communist party in the 20's and 30's against religion in the Soviet Union was a direct result of their atheism.
It is by its very nature impossible for somebody to do an act prompted by a lack of belief (think about it).
It is however very possible, and in fact a depressingly common occurance, for somebody to do certain acts for the sole reason that their religion tells them to do so.
As I said before, and I'll say it once more before someone start to make accusations, I'm not implying that all or even most religious people do such acts. But there is no denying that many acts of cruelty, prejudice, bigotry and far, far worse have been commited for the sole reason that a certain organised religion demands it so.
That is the fundamental difference between religion and atheism. The former gives specific instructions to commit wrongful acts, and as a direct result many wrongful acts have been commited. And it is not always to do with people being nasty by nature and using religion as an excuse. Not by a long shot. Religion has made them the bigots and extremists they are. There are no two ways about it.
Atheism has never caused, and could never cause such acts or behaviour since it does not demand or state anything at all whatsoever, other than there is not such thing as deities.
Communism didn't move against religion because of some sort of atheistic coup. Communists moved (if i recall my history lessons correctly) against all forms of retardation of the proletariat - religion, nationalism etc.; they wanted to make people more class aware.
Therefore they gave a value or a belief system to the concept of atheism.